Ms O Tajuamuda v Precious Homes Ltd — 2023

Case reference: 1404104/2023
Decision date: 30 October 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Midgley Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms O Tajuamuda

Respondent

Precious Homes Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Ms O Tajuamuda had been employed by Precious Homes Ltd for less than two years.

Because the claimant did not meet the statutory service requirement, the tribunal concluded she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, she did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.

The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not show an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.